1.Assistant Professor

This rank is normally the entry level rank for Faculty holding the doctorate in an appropriate discipline.

2.Associate Professor

Hire to or promotion to this rank presumes prior service as an Assistant Professor, significant academic achievements, and possession of the doctorate in an appropriate discipline (See, Section V of this Handbook).

3.Professor

Promotion to this rank requires credentials and achievements beyond those required for promotion to Associate Professor and is reserved for senior Faculty members who have achieved significant recognition in their discipline (See, Section IV of this Handbook).

4.Research Associate and Research Assistant

These titles are reserved for individuals who are engaged in research and who are not normally assigned teaching responsibilities. Such positions are typically supported by extramural grant funds and are not tenure-track appointments. Faculty who hold these titles do not vote on School committees and do not participate in School governance.

5.Adjunct Faculty Appointments

These appointments are held primarily by faculty from other institutions or persons on the staffs of community-based agencies and organizations. Adjunct faculty appointments are made at the discretion of the Director in consultation with the FAC and the approval of the Dean. Adjunct faculty members do not vote on School Committees and do not participate in School governance.

6.Visiting Faculty Appointments

Visiting faculty appointments at an appropriate faculty rank may be made when leaves of absence occur or special needs arise and funds are available. A visiting faculty member is typically a faculty member from another institution who is employed by the School for a period not to exceed one (1) year. In the event that a Visiting faculty member is employed in that capacity for a second consecutive year, the visiting faculty member will then become a full-time Non-tenure track (NTT) faculty member.

7.Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTT) Appointments

Full-time non-tenure track faculty (NTT) appointments are made on an annual basis (See, Section VI of this Handbook). NTT appointments are not included under the umbrella of the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and NTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure.

8.Part-Time Faculty Appointments

When the School cannot meet its teaching needs from the ranks of its Faculty, NTT faculty and graduate students, part-time faculty appointments will be made from an established pool of qualified applicants.

As a doctoral degree granting School, the School normally requires that all Faculty hired for tenure-track positions be eligible for appointment to the graduate faculty as associate or full members. The Administrative policy regarding graduate faculty is included in the University Policy Register. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15.1)

A Full member is typically expected to hold a terminal degree, usually a doctorate in field, have a record of substantial, sustained, and scholarly work, and provide quality graduate instructions, thesis/dissertation direction, and advisement.

An Associate Member is typically expected to hold and earned doctoral degree, provides evidence of an emerging pattern of current scholarly work, and provides quality graduate instruction, thesis direction, and advisement.

A1 – Effective teaching and advising of graduate students and serves on master’s committees.

The policies and procedures for reappointment are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty reappointment (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-16). Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the School’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee (See, Section III of this Handbook). Probationary Faculty members are expected to work with the School Director to identify at least one (1) faculty member each year to visit their class and evaluate their teaching performance. A written report of the evaluation is submitted to the Director for placement in the Faculty member’s reappointment file. Probationary Faculty members also will create an updated file that is presented to the Director who will make these materials available to the Ad Hoc RTP Committee. Each probationary Faculty member is discussed by the committee which then votes on the faculty member’s reappointment. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary Faculty member and forwards her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean. The Director informs probationary Faculty members of the committee's recommendation and provides a copy of her/his recommendation to the Dean. Probationary Faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. For Faculty members whose appointment is in the Regional Campuses, recommendations on reappointment from the Director are forwarded to the Dean and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean.

For probationary Faculty, reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure. Moreover, the Faculty member must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals. For Faculty members following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period at Kent State University is particularly critical. Upon completion of the third year of the probationary period, Faculty reviewing a candidate for reappointment should consider the record of the candidate’s achievements to date. This record should be considered a predictor of future success. The hallmark of a successful candidate is compelling evidence of the potential to have an impact upon the discourse of her/his discipline. This record can be demonstrated through peer reviewed work and other significant scholarly contributions in one or more established lines of inquiry, as well as a clear and focused plan for building on this work. Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and/or the Director during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in subsequent reappointment reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the Faculty member's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek reappointment in the School. A candidate who fails to demonstrate likely success in the tenure process will be notified promptly that she/he will not be reappointed.

In the event that concerns about a candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Director shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback. If such concerns arise during a review that occurs after completion of three (3) full years in the probationary period, the Director, in consultation with the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the School’s tenure and promotion expectations; however, the candidate is solely responsible for her/his success in implementing this plan.

From time to time, personal and/or family circumstances may arise that require an untenured Faculty member to need to request that her/his probationary period be extended. Upon request, a Faculty member may be granted an extension of the probationary period which has been traditionally called “tolling” or “stopping the tenure clock.” The University policy and procedures governing modification of the faculty probationary period is included in the University Policy Register. (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-13)

The policies and procedures for tenure are included in the University policy and procedures regarding faculty tenure (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-14) and the policies and procedures for promotion are included in the Universitypolicy and procedures regarding faculty promotion (See, University Policy Register 3342-6-15). Each academic year, tenure and promotion guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Tenure and promotion are separate decisions. The granting of tenure is a decision that plays a crucial role in determining the quality of the University’s Faculty and the national and international status of the University. The awarding of tenure must be based on convincing documented evidence that the Faculty member has achieved a significant body of scholarship that has had an impact on her/his discipline, excellence as a teacher, and has provided effective service. The candidate is also expected to continue and sustain, over the long term, a program of high quality teaching, scholarship and service relevant to the mission of the candidate’s academic unit(s) and to the mission of the University. Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State University to examine consistency, as well as grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals pending, papers “in press,” graduate students currently advised, and any other materials that may reflect on the candidate’s potential for a long term successful career. The tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate’s potential to pursue a productive career. On the other hand, promotion is recognition based on a candidate’s accomplishments completed during the review period and promotion decisions are based on papers published and accepted, grants received and graduate students graduated during the review period, as well as high quality teaching evaluations and service to the University and the profession consistent with his/her faculty assignment.

The School has undergraduate programs in the following areas: Athletic Training, Exercise Science, Health Education and Promotion, Integrated Health Studies, Nutrition and Dietetics, and Speech Pathology and Audiology. At the graduate level, the School offers Master's degrees in the following program areas: Athletic Training, Exercise Physiology, Health Education and Promotion, and Speech Pathology, Health Education and Promotion, Nutrition and Dietetics and doctoral programs in Health Education and Promotion, Exercise Physiology, and Speech Pathology, and Audiology. Because of the diverse nature of the Faculty in this School, evaluation of faculty members for reappointment, tenure and promotion must reflect the program area with which they are associated with and the assignments stated in their appointment letters and workload statements.

Principles of Evaluation

When a Faculty member has met the academic credential of possessing the terminal degree in his/her discipline (i.e., Ph.D., Ed.D.) and met the University experience criteria, the individual will be evaluated on the basis of his/her research/scholarship, teaching and service. In general, expectations include establishing one or more lines of research/inquiry, demonstrating effective teaching and student mentoring, and becoming contributing citizens of their professions (i.e., community engagement and service to professional organizations) and of the University (i.e., service to the program, School, College, and University).

Contextual Statement/Vitae

Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are expected to include a contextual statement and current vitae in their file. The contextual statement should clearly articulate the candidate’s lines of inquiry, describe the candidate’s roles in producing each scholarly contribution and explain how his/her work impacts the field and/or builds his/her line(s)of inquiry.

Research

1. Basic Expectations

Faculty members are expected to conduct empirical research (basic or applied) using any combination of accepted research methodologies and analyses (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method, etc.). Non-empirical scholarship (e.g., conceptual pieces, extensive reviews of the literature, and descriptions of professional practice or teaching strategies) is valued, but should not be the exclusive focus of a candidate’s research agenda.

2. Standards

Reappointment: The candidate must provide evidence that he/she has an active research program, and that the candidate’s scholarly work is deemed of high quality by peers in his/her profession.

Tenure: The candidate must provide evidence that his/her scholarly work is deemed of high quality by external peers. Evidence of a pattern of scholarship and demonstrated potential for continued meaningful clearly defined lines of inquiry with an emerging nationally recognized research program is required.

Promotion to Associate Professor: The candidate must provide evidence that his/her scholarly work is deemed of high quality by external peers. Evidence of sustained, significant involvement in systematic lines of scholarship and demonstrated potential for continued meaningful inquiry with an emerging nationally recognized research program is required.

Promotion to Professor: The candidate must demonstrate an extended, record of scholarship that demonstrates sustained achievement and leadership in the systematic line(s) of inquiry within his/her profession. The candidate also must provide documentation of nationally and/or internationally recognized, outstanding scholarly productivity with a clear impact in one or more of his/her area of expertise.

3. Evaluation of Research. In evaluating the research of a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion, the Committee should consider the following factors:

a. Reputation. A Faculty member's reputation is a reflection of the quality, extent, and creativity of his/her research output and is, therefore, an issue that is carefully evaluated for tenure and promotion. For tenure and promotion, a candidate must provide evidence that his/her work has provided an impact on his/her discipline. Reputation is typically evaluated by letters from outside reviewers in the candidate's area of expertise, invited colloquia, book chapters, invited presentations, monographs, and editorships of journals and special honors as pertains to the Faculty member’s research.

b. Dissemination of Research. The quality and quantity of peer- reviewed journal articles, including empirical articles, theoretical and review articles, are important considerations in arriving at a decision to recommend reappointment, tenure and/or promotion. The expectation in the School is that the candidate’s record will include a significant body of empirical research. Candidates should describe their roles in producing each contribution and explain how their work impacts the field and/or builds their lines of inquiry.
i. Only publications or “in press” material are counted
ii. Items that are under review or in preparation may be considered but given very little weight.
iii. Quality of the publication is evaluated by a variety of factors:
1. Candidates are advised to publish in journals associated with national or international professional organizations, journals known for disseminating high quality scholarship related to the candidate’s specific area of focus, or journals having a high impact on research or practice within the candidate’s field and should be justified in the candidate’s contextual statement. When candidates choose journals outside these parameters, it is imperative they provide further justification for doing so in the candidate’s contextual statement.
2. In addition to providing features such as the journal’s rate of acceptance and/or rankings, candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are advised to describe the journal’s audience and why that audience is an appropriate fit for the article’s content, explain whether or not the article was peer reviewed, including an explanation, if the journal is not refereed, and identify the journal’s association with the candidate’s specific area of research or professional practice.
3. Candidates must demonstrate capacity to lead a project through either sole or first authorship publication (e.g. co- authorship with a student) or last authorship if appropriate to the field.
4. Within all programs in the School, co-authored publications with colleagues and students are common, and collaboration is viewed as a strength.
iv. Presentations. Refereed presentations at the national or international level are a contributing factor to the body of work in the candidate’s line of inquiry.

c. Funding

Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are encouraged to seek internal and external funding to support their lines of inquiry by submitting applications to foundations or grant-funding sources. Funding norms of specific fields should be discussed in the candidate’s contextual statement. External funding may be difficult to secure by junior Faculty, and applications for funding should not be the primary focus of a candidate’s research agenda prior to tenure, but unsuccessful applications at this stage of a Faculty member’s career have value and are viewed as a
foundation for subsequent submissions. External funding is valued more highly than internal funding. External funding supporting the candidate’s scholarly activities is expected for promotion to Professor.

Faculty members are expected to be active participants in their professional field. Evidence of outside professional activity is necessary for tenure and promotion. Examples of such activity would be reviewing for journals, attending professional meetings regularly, holding office in a professional organization, serving on professional committees, etc.

Faculty members are expected to engage in effective teaching and mentoring of students. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are expected to clearly articulate their teaching philosophies and to reflect on their teaching and mentoring by identifying areas of strength and addressing areas of need based on feedback from students and peers.

Tenure: The candidate must provide evidence of a strong performance and commitment to continued high quality teaching and fulfillment of advising responsibilities. Evidence of mentoring students must be presented and when possible, involvement in master’s level theses/project advisement and/or doctoral dissertations.

Promotion to Associate Professor: The candidate must provide evidence of a strong performance in classroom instruction and fulfillment of advising responsibilities. Evidence of mentoring students must be presented and when possible, involvement in master’s level theses/project advisement and/or doctoral dissertations.

Promotion to Professor: The candidate must provide evidence of a strong performance and commitment to ongoing improvement in classroom instruction and fulfillment of advising responsibilities. Evidence of mentoring students must be presented and when possible, involvement in master’s level theses/project advisement and/or doctoral dissertations.

In evaluating the teaching record of a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion, the Committee should consider the following factors:

Classroom instruction. Performance of the Faculty member in the classroom is an important part of teaching evaluation and includes such characteristics as coherence, interest-level, organization, etc. The quality of course content is also critically important. Although evidence of effective teaching does not rely exclusively on student evaluations of instruction, these evaluations, including the student’s written comments, will be included as part of the review of teaching. Formal reviews of instruction by colleagues respected for their effective teaching also are expected. Candidates are encouraged to solicit at least one (1) peer review per year. Syllabi and other artifacts of teaching (e.g., sample assignments and exams, classroom materials, and student projects) serve as further evidence of a candidate’s teaching effectiveness.

Research supervision. The supervision of undergraduate and graduate student research is an integral part of the workload of Faculty members (on the Kent Campus) and serves as an important role of the Faculty in consideration for promotion. When students publish their work (i.e., thesis or dissertation) or pursue their professional goals/ aspirations, this reflects on the Faculty member who mentored them. Faculty members in doctoral granting programs are expected to supervise student research.

Clinical supervision (if required). For some Faculty members in the School, the teaching of professional skills to clinical students is considered the equivalent to teaching in a traditional classroom setting; therefore, its evaluation for reappointment, tenure, and promotion follows the same guidelines as described in “Classroom Instruction.”

Advising/mentoring. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are expected to be responsive to their undergraduate and graduate students and provide high quality and sustained mentorship through their duties as academic advisors and dissertation/thesis/project directors or committee members. Mentorship at the graduate level would include activities such as publications, presentations, and career development for graduate students. Mentoring undergraduate students on special projects such as Honors College, McNair Scholars Program, and other programs promoting undergraduate student scholarship should also be considered.

Innovative teaching activities. Implementation and evaluation of innovative teaching strategies are valued. Examples include new course development or the inclusion of service-learning activities, student mentoring initiatives, and web-based instruction (e.g., online course development or the inclusion of podcasts, blogs, wikis, online assignments, discussions and quizzes). Evidence of teaching scholarship (e.g.., journal articles, presentations, and other publications) has value and demonstrates the candidate’s commitment to effective teaching and mentoring. Involvement in the University Teaching Council, participation in the Faculty Professional Development Teaching Scholars’ Program and Learning Communities, and the recognition of a candidate’s teaching or mentoring through University or professional awards provide additional evidence of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness.

Funding. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are encouraged to seek internal and external funding to support specific teaching lines of inquiry by submitting applications to foundations or grant-funding sources. Funding norms of specific fields should be discussed in the candidate’s contextual statement. External funding may be difficult to secure by junior Faculty, so applications for funding should not be the primary focus of a candidate’s teaching agenda prior to tenure, but unsuccessful applications at this stage in a Faculty member’s career have value and are viewed as a foundation for subsequent submissions.

Reappointment: The candidate must provide evidence of service on various Program, School, College, or University adhoc and standing committees appropriate to years of appointment and faculty work load assignments. Service to the community and/or his/her profession also will be considered.

Tenure: The candidate must provide evidence of involvement and continued growth in service to the Program, School, College, or University through requisite membership on adhoc and/or standing committees. Responsiveness to the needs of the Program and the needs of the students must be demonstrated. Service to the community and/or his/her profession also will be considered.

Promotion to Associate Professor: The candidate must provide evidence of active involvement and emerging leadership in service to the Program, School, College, or University through requisite membership on adhoc and/or standing committees. Responsiveness to the needs of the Program and the needs of the students must be demonstrated. Service to the community and/or his/her profession also will be considered.

Promotion to Professor: The candidate must provide evidence of leadership in service to the Program, School, College, or University through requisite membership on adhoc and/or standing committees. Responsiveness to the needs of the Program and the needs of the students must be demonstrated. Service to the community and/or his/her profession also will be considered.

Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are expected to be continually involved in University service throughout their time at the University (they may begin with program-level service and progress by adding service to the School, College, and/or University).

1. University service includes but is not limited to active committee membership and leadership, program development, accreditation and certification reviews, and serving as an advisor to student groups.

2. Community service includes but is not limited to developing and fostering partnerships with community agencies, enhancing opportunities for field experiences and/or service-learning for students, serving on community agency boards, translating and presenting research to community audiences, and serving as a volunteer for agencies addressing community needs.

3. Service to the profession includes but is not limited to membership and leadership in national- and state-level professional organizations, serving as a reviewer for conferences, journals, books and funding agencies, and serving on a journal’s editorial board or as journal editor.

4. Funding. Candidates for reappointment, tenure, and promotion are encouraged to seek funding to support their activities involving community service, organizations, and agencies.

Appointments for FTNTT faculty are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement and are made annually. FTNTT faculty members are appointed in one of the following tracks: Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner and Research. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position. In the first three (3) years of employment an FTNTT will be give notice as early as possible if the University does not anticipate a 4th year of employment. The FTNTT will simultaneously be given notice that there is no need to stand for review

The Full Performance Reviews of FTNTT faculty members who are in their third or sixth year of consecutive employment are governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the Full Performance Reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The Full Performance Review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review. Each FTNTT candidate who must complete a Full Performance Review will submit a dossier as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The file should contain at least an updated curriculum vita, self-evaluation of performance, peer reviews, teaching evaluations, and supporting documents. Additional information about the dossier for a Full Performance Review is included in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

FTNTT faculty are reviewed by the College’s RTP Committee on the specific criteria outlined in their letter of appointment and as described below, including consideration of the track (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner or Research) to which the FTNTT faculty member is assigned. An inherent part of the review process is to provide feedback to the FTNTT faculty member based on clear and consistent performance criteria. Renewals of appointment and salaries for FTNTT faculty should be tied to performance within the parameters established in the applicable CBA. Rubrics for the assessment of teaching performance, recruitment and/or retention, research, etc. will be developed and shared with the candidate, and used to evaluate performance. Student assessment of teaching and mentoring may also be used to assess performance, as necessary. In consultation with the Director, each FTNTT faculty member will identify one Faculty member each year to visit a class and evaluate his/her teaching. A written report is submitted to the Director for placement in the faculty member's review file.

The overall evaluation during the full performance review shall include consideration of the faculty member’s professional behavior as recognized by the University community. A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession is expected of all who seek renewal of appointment in the School. Recommendation for a successful full performance review shall be based on the following criteria:

Performance: To be assessed on the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities associated with the assigned track of the candidate (Instructional, Clinical, Practitioner or Research).

Professional Development: To be assessed as it relates to the assigned track of the candidate.

University Citizenship: To be assessed as it relates to the assigned track of the candidate.

Evidence of significant accomplishments in both Performance and Professional Development is required. Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of University Citizenship are neither required nor expected, but will, when they exist, contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishments.

FTNTT faculty members who are in their ninth year of consecutive employment and any subsequent third year of consecutive employment thereafter (e.g., 12th, 15th, 18th, etc.) must successfully complete a “simplified” performance review as described in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Each academic year, guidelines for the “simplified” performance reviews for FTNTT faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. The “simplified” performance review concludes with the College’s level of review and determination. The period of performance to be reviewed is the three (3) full academic years of consecutive appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review. FTNTT faculty who must complete a “simplified” performance review will submit documentation as described in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

After a FTNTT has been through eighteen (18) years of employment, the FTNTT faculty member will go through a more informal review with the School Director. The FTNTT member will submit a CV and a narrative of one (1) to three (3) pages to the School Director. The School Director will schedule a meeting with the FTNTT faculty member. The meeting will constitute the review. If there is some sort of performance issue, the regular performance review will take place at a specified date.

FTNTT faculty members who have completed at least six (6) consecutive years of service and at least two (2) successful Full Performance Reviews may apply for promotion at the time of their second Full Performance Review or with any scheduled performance review thereafter. The criteria, guidelines and procedures for FTNTT promotions are included in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). As required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), evidence of significant accomplishments in performance and professional development is required. Accomplishments and/or contributions in the area of university citizenship, when they exist, will contribute to the FTNTT faculty member’s overall record of accomplishment. The College’s Non-Tenure Track Promotion Advisory Board (NPAB) shall be composed of FTNTT faculty representatives. The NPAB will review the applications for promotion and make a recommendation to the Dean.

After five (5) full years in rank, an Associate Professor or Associate Lecturer can stand for the second promotion to Full Professor or Senior Lecturer in her/his 6th year.

The RTP Committee of the School will be composed of three (3) NTT faculty members and two (2) tenure-track Faculty members.

Each NTT faculty member is discussed by the committee which votes on a recommendation for renewal of the faculty member’s appointment or promotion. The Director independently assesses the accomplishments of each NTT faculty member and forwards to the Dean her/his recommendation and the committee's recommendation. The Director informs the NTT faculty member of the Ad Hoc RTP Committee's deliberations and provides the faculty member a copy of the recommendation that the Director sends to the Dean. NTT faculty members whose appointments will not be renewed must be notified by the timelines established in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.

Any faculty member who believes that he/she may have a grievance is strongly encouraged, before initiating a formal grievance or appeal, to talk with the Director about any issue(s) of concern. The Director may seek the advice and recommendation of individual faculty members or faculty advisory groups in seeking informal resolution of a dispute or complaint.

2. Formal Procedure

Formal procedures for addressing grievances affecting the terms and conditions of employment of faculty are described in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Disputes involving substantive academic judgments are subject to a separate academic appeals process governed by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Faculty grievances that are not directly related to the terms or conditions of employment and are not academic appeals are appropriately addressed within the School, whenever possible. The Director and/or faculty members will initiate an informal dialogue with all parties involved in a dispute and strive to reach a resolution agreeable to all parties.